Space in the Summer DoldrumsAs summer revisits North
America, space activities in the U.S. are facing crises at nearly every turn.
In civil space, cost overruns in the International Space Station threaten its
very usefulness, portending leaving it adrift only to be kept running with the
possibility of little science. In advanced human space exploration technology,
the stations ills have stripped virtually every dollar (considering the
budget of the past few years more like dimes) from the research budget. In commercial
space, the folly of the 1998 export-licensing shift has all but destroyed the
boom of the recent past. In space launch the failure of the low Earth orbit
constellations like Iridium and ICO have flattened launch market projections,
some of which were being eyed by struggling reusable launch entrepreneurs. Consolidations
in U.S. aerospace continue, notwithstanding the failure of the G.E.-Honeywell
merger as this is written. Only military space programs seem destined for attention,
but a careful review of the FY2002 budget additions just made by the Bush administration
show few dollars directed to accompany the recent rhetoric.

Space, in America, is in the summer doldrums.

And abroad its not much better.

France recently demurred on the NASA effort to get its approval to supply, in
a barter arrangement, the rescue craft for the station. Ariane 5 production
is aimed at shrinking the costs of producing the big booster, thereby making
it more attractive for commercial sale. But even with such cuts, revenue is
likely to be reduced overall, since growth in sales are unlikely to make up
for the reduced revenue from the cheaper rockets. Japan is banking all on a
late August test flight of the H-IIA. Its failure would all but ground Japans
plans for space autonomy.

Following Dennis Titos pioneering voyage, the 16 international partners
on the station are to approve a protocol for the next space tourists, but some
hint that NASA is already dragging its feet. A review of commercial plans by
NASA isnt expected to be completed until fall. And the Bush White House
doesnt seem to be in any great rush to either identify a new civil space
chief or a space policy to go with him/her.

So what are we to make of all this?

Since America has not chosenat least not yetto lead the way in a
new space plan, the great spacefaring powers must do so together. Thus the current
climate calls for even greater space cooperation. Long range planning in this
environment is difficult, to be sure, but it is time the U.S. and its space
partners start looking beyond the ISS towards practical goals for the decade
ahead, after the station has been assembled. Since the U.S. clearly isnt
interested in staking out a firm position on a new human spaceflight goal, then
perhaps one can be arrived at by consensus. This will require a careful and
candid series of exchanges among the partners. This also assumes that the existing
ISS partnerships are the starting point for future human exploration.

We are talking about, of course, returning to the lunar surface or Mars expeditions.
In such international space exchanges, perhaps a clear path back to the Moon
can be arrived at by determining now, before anyone starts talking about making
such goals into policy, which technologies or mission sequences each partner
might be interested in.

Or not.

If the great spacefaring powers would reject a given mission, then the United
States would be in a better position to determine what might be feasible and
what might not.

This is not the best way to sanction a future space goal  in essence by
osmosis.

But with seven months of the Bush administration complete, and no new NASA administrator
or space policy in sight, it is time to start planning for alternate ways to
continue humanitys reach into space beyond Earth orbit.

Space remains critical to humanitys future, and we have to just work harder
to make leaders know that. It is not the time to give up, but to get tough!

Oh, and one other national adjunct to this international effort at communication.
While the Senate and House have named their members, the White House is dragging
its feet on naming its six members to the Congressionally-mandated panel looking
into the future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry. The commission is to complete
a report by March, 2002 on what plans the federal government should put in place
to help the industry, mainly by a cogent program of research and development,
which has fallen to its lowest point in 40 years. We urge whomever still cares
about aerospace within the administration  surely someone does 
to name their people and let the commission finally get started. After all,
as summer comes to Washington, it has only seven months left out of its original
15 to craft a plan for the future of all of aerospace.

That is, if it has a future.

Sorry to sound such a pessimistic note.

Consider it part of the summer doldrums, circa 2001.
Ad AstraBACK TO TOP